JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21/01/2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2008, whereby, the appellants herein-original accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 114 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that prior to four months of the date of incident i.e. 15/01/2008, the accused No. 1, a resident of Vadodara, used to quarrel with his deceased wife - Indiraben Jagdishbhai Sargara (Marwadi) after consuming liquor, every now and then, which was abetted by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and thereby, they all were causing harassment and torture to the deceased. When the same became unbearable, on the unfortunate day of 15/01/2008, between 9:15 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a dupatta tied on a fan and thereby, the accused committed the offence alleged against them, for which a complaint came to be lodged. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Vadodara. The trial Court framed charge against the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under:- ORAL EVIDENCE S. No. Name of Witness Exhibit 1. Champaben Khimaji Sargara 7 2. Rameshbhai Khimaji Marwadi 9 3. Chhaganlal Khimaji Marwadi 10 4. Popatbhai Khimaji Sargara 11 5. Dr. Bijaysinh Ganpatsinh Rathod 14 6. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under:- ORAL EVIDENCE S. No. Name of Witness Exhibit 1. Champaben Khimaji Sargara 7 2. Rameshbhai Khimaji Marwadi 9 3. Chhaganlal Khimaji Marwadi 10 4. Popatbhai Khimaji Sargara 11 5. Dr. Bijaysinh Ganpatsinh Rathod 14 6. Raghuvirsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya 19 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. No. Document Exhibit 1. Original complaint 8 2. Inquest Panchnama 12 3. Panchnama of place of offence 13 4. P.M. Report 15 5. Port-Mortem Form 17 6. Yadi to FSL 20 7. Preliminary Report of FSL 21 2.2 At the end of the trial, Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') were recorded in which, they pleaded not guilty and false implication. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statements and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid, by impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellants-accused have preferred the present appeal against conviction. 3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Nisha Mishra for Mr. Gajendra P. Baghel, learned advocate for the appellants-accused and Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State. 3.1 Ms. Mishra, learned advocate for the appellants-accused, submitted that the trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the accused. It was contended by her that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led before it and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has failed to prove the whole ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused. She took the Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW-1 - Champaben Khimaji Sargara, exh. 7, PW-2 - Rameshbhai Khimaji Marwadi, exh. 9, PW-3 - Chhaganlal Khimaji Marwadi, exh. 10 and PW-4 - Popatbhai Khimaji Sargara, exh. 11 and submitted that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile. 7, PW-2 - Rameshbhai Khimaji Marwadi, exh. 9, PW-3 - Chhaganlal Khimaji Marwadi, exh. 10 and PW-4 - Popatbhai Khimaji Sargara, exh. 11 and submitted that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared as hostile. Moreover, after they declared as hostile, they had been cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing substantial had come out from the cross-examination by the prosecution of the said witnesses, however, the learned trial Judge has placed much reliance on the said cross-examination of these witnesses and thereby, has materially erred in connecting the accused. She further submitted that, in fact, from the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses, it is revealed that the deceased and her husband, the accused No. 1, were residing separately from the accused Nos. 2 and 3, since their marriage. The learned advocate for the appellants-accused further submitted that on the date and time of the incident, the accused No. 1 had gone to his work and the deceased - wife was alone at home with the minor child and she committed suicide by hanging herself with a dupatta. On 16/01/2008, when the death of the deceased was communicated to the family members of the deceased, they directly rushed to the SSG Hospital at Vadodara where the dead body of the deceased was lying and after receiving the dead body, they left for Ahmedabad from Vadodara for cremation and as per the prosecution, thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged on 16/01/2008 at about 12:15 p.m. before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadodara. She submitted that even as per the deposition of complainant - Champaben, exh. 7, she has admitted that after the incident, the police had obtained her signature/thumb impression on a ready complaint and even she had no knowledge about the alleged harassment and cruelty to her deceased daughter by the appellants - accused. She submitted that nothing has come on record that the deceased had ever complained to the complainant as regards such cruel treatment being meted out to the deceased by the appellants - accused. Even PW-2 - Rameshbhai and PW-3 - Chhaganlal, the real brothers of the deceased, whose depositions have been recorded at exhs. 9 and 10 respectively, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even they do not know the basic details of the Police Station, where and when their statements were recorded and so on. Even PW-2 - Rameshbhai and PW-3 - Chhaganlal, the real brothers of the deceased, whose depositions have been recorded at exhs. 9 and 10 respectively, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even they do not know the basic details of the Police Station, where and when their statements were recorded and so on. Moreover, as per the deposition of Investigating Officer - Raghuvirsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya, exh. 19, on the date of incident i.e. on 15/01/2008, the accused No. 1 himself had appeared before him and narrated the facts and accordingly, a case of accidental death was registered by him, however, on the next date i.e. on 16/01/2008, the complaint in question had been registered by the complainant. Under the circumstances, when the case of accidental death was registered immediately after the incident, on the next day the complaint in question had been registered, which creates doubt. Moreover, the prosecution has to produce the station diary but the same has not come on record and therefore also, the complaint in question is not believable. Moreover, almost all the witnesses are the interested witnesses and though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has neither recorded their statements nor has examined any such witness and solely upon the evidence of such interested witnesses, conviction should not have been recorded and thereby also, the impugned judgment and order is not tenable. The learned advocate for the appellants - accused submitted that the most important aspect of cruelty being meted out to the deceased and hence she had committed suicide, is not proved at all by the prosecution and there is nothing on record to establish that the accused were involved in the crime, and the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the trial Court has committed a serious error in convicting the accused and eventually, she requested to allow the present appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Chandarana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State while supporting the impugned judgment and order, contended that the offence is already proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, when the trial Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter minutely, this Court may not interfere in appeal. Chandarana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State while supporting the impugned judgment and order, contended that the offence is already proved by the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, when the trial Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter minutely, this Court may not interfere in appeal. She vehemently submitted that the incident had occurred in such a short span of the marriage and that too at the matrimonial home of the deceased and in the circumstances, the Court can very well presume against the accused under the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. She submitted that the complaint in question had been lodged immediately on the next day of the incident and accordingly, it cannot be said to be an afterthought. She further submitted that, in the matrimonial cases, generally the witnesses are the relatives and friends and accordingly, only because they are relatives, their versions cannot be discarded. Moreover, it is a fact that the PW Nos. 1 to 4 have been declared as hostile, however, taking into consideration their cross-examinations and other corroborative evidence and after due appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge has believed the death of the deceased to be a suicidal one and not the accidental one and has come to such a conclusion, which requires no interference by this Court. Eventually, she requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record on the rival submissions made by them and re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. On going through the depositions of PW-1 - Champaben Khimaji Sargara, exh. 7, Rameshbhai Khimaji Marwadi, exh. 9, Chhaganlal Khimaji Marwadi, exh. 10 and Popatbhai Khimaji Sargara, exh. 11, it appears that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned and declared as hostile. According to these witnesses, after the incident, they have never visited Vadodara and have never taken care about the minor child who was aged 1.5 years. Moreover, on going through the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses viz. According to these witnesses, after the incident, they have never visited Vadodara and have never taken care about the minor child who was aged 1.5 years. Moreover, on going through the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses viz. neighbours, though available and the witnesses, who have been examined are the interested witnesses and they too, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Moreover, referring the Further Statement under Section 313 of the Code, the accused No. 1 has stated that the deceased was living in isolation. The complainant side also was not taking care of her. It is further stated in his statement that for want of money, a false case has been registered against them. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 also have reported concurrence and submitted that the deceased and accused No. 1 were residing separately since marriage and they have not committed the crime and for want of money, a false case has been registered. Thus, looking to the overall evidence on record, more particularly, the fact that the crucial witnesses i.e. PW Nos. 1 to 4, have turned hostile, the prosecution case does not inspire confidence. Moreover, referring to the depositions of PW Nos. 1 to 4, it has come on record that original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at the different place and were not residing with deceased and accused No. 1. The said aspect appears to have not touched by the trial Court and the two said contradictory view had not touched at all and hence, also there appears substance in the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellants that when the evidence which have come on record is not trustworthy the same should be discarded by the Court. 5.1 Further, the contention has been made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that looking to the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, a presumption can be made. It is true that the law of evidence provides for drawing presumption, more particularly, when such incident occurs within a span of less than seven years, however, as per the settled legal position, for drawing presumption certain corroboration is required which can substantiate the case of the prosecution. It is true that the law of evidence provides for drawing presumption, more particularly, when such incident occurs within a span of less than seven years, however, as per the settled legal position, for drawing presumption certain corroboration is required which can substantiate the case of the prosecution. However, in the case on hand, the crucial witnesses, as referred herein above, have turned hostile and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, it is also an undisputed fact that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been residing separately since the marriage of the deceased and under the circumstances, only because the incident has occurred within a span of less than seven years of the marriage, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, cannot be made straightway. 5.2 Moreover, in the opinion of the Court, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, the Further Statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code, as these statements, as such, appears to have been supported by the depositions of the PW Nos. 1 to 4. The learned trial Judge has mainly considered to death of brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased - Mithaji when all had attended the after death ceremony and at that time the deceased had told to the family members, who have been examined in the case on hand, regarding her husband that after consuming liquor, he quarrels with her and also beats her and at that time, her sister-in-law and the father-in-law had taken the side of the accused No. 1 and also quarrelled with her. However, nothing has been coming on record so as to show as to on which date, Mithaji had died, when and where they had gathered and how much period had lapsed thereafter. Further, the said aspect also, is not supported by the prosecution witnesses. 5.3 In the above backdrop, in the opinion of the Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There appears material lapses in the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Judge having failed to consider and evaluate all the aspects in their true and proper perspective, the impugned judgment and order being contrary to law and evidence on record and perverse, requires to be set aside by allowing the present appeal. 6. There appears material lapses in the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Judge having failed to consider and evaluate all the aspects in their true and proper perspective, the impugned judgment and order being contrary to law and evidence on record and perverse, requires to be set aside by allowing the present appeal. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 21/01/2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2008, is hereby set aside. The accused No. 1 is reported to have been in jail. Accordingly, he is directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. In view of present appeal is allowed, Criminal Misc. Application No. 16814 of 2014, filed by the accused No. 1 for suspension of sentence, does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. Registry to return the R&P to the trial Court forthwith.